Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity, 5382-5385 [E7-1882]

Download as PDF 5382 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that, to the extent allowable by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of Subsections (a) and (b) of that Section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under Sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ‘‘in accordance with’’ the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ‘‘consistent with’’ regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:52 Feb 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal program involving Indian lands. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a decision on a proposed State regulatory program provision does not constitute major Federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c). A determination has been made that such decisions are categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 13.5(A)(2)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State amendment that is the subject of this rule is based on counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State or local governmental agencies; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: January 12, 2007. H. Vann Weaver, Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Region. [FR Doc. E7–1862 Filed 2–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–05–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD01–06–023] RIN 1625–AA98 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM Coast Guard, DHS. 06FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to expand the boundary of a Special Anchorage Area on the Hudson River at Nyack, NY. This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide safe and secure anchorages for vessels not more than 20 meters in length. This proposed action is intended to increase the safety of life and property on the Hudson River, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of recreational vessel traffic and commerce. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Waterways Management Division (CGD01–06–023), Coast Guard Sector New York, 212 Coast Guard Drive, room 321, Staten Island, New York 10305. The Waterways Management Division of Coast Guard Sector New York maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 321, Coast Guard Sector New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at (718) 354– 2353. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01–06–023), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:52 Feb 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Division at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose As part of a waterfront revitalization effort, the Village of Nyack is encouraging waterfront use by the general public. This proposed rule is in response to a request made by the Village of Nyack to ensure the safe navigation of increased vessel traffic expected to arrive along the village waterfront due to this revitalization effort. The Coast Guard is designating the area as a special anchorage area in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. In accordance with that statute, vessels will not be required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes which are otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules, codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035. The proposed expanded special anchorage area will be located on the west side of the Hudson River about 1,600 yards north of the Tappan Zee Bridge, well removed from the channel and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels. Providing an anchorage well removed from the channel and general navigation would greatly increase navigational safety. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule would expand the boundary of a current special anchorage area located on the Hudson River at the Village of Nyack, NY. It would include all waters of the Hudson River bound by the following points: 41°06′06.8″ N, 073°54′55.5″ W; thence to 41°06′06.8″ N, 073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N, 073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N, 073°55′02.2″ W; thence along the shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 1983). The boundaries of the special anchorage area would increase from its current size of approximately 735 yards by approximately 1,030 yards to approximately 935 yards by approximately 2,250 yards. The 200 yard expansion beyond the current boundary would occur on the eastern side and the 2,250 yard expansion would occur on the southern side of the special anchorage area. All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The expanded special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no greater than 20 meters in length. Vessels not PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 5383 more than 20 meters in length are not required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2030) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally, mariners utilizing the expanded anchorage area are encouraged to contact local and State authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with additional applicable State and local laws. Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage. Vessels would not be authorized to anchor within a buoyed fairway within the expanded special anchorage area. The fairway will be marked to prevent vessels from anchoring near an active cable. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding is based on the fact that the proposal conforms to the changing needs of the Village of Nyack and the changing needs of recreational vessels along the Hudson River. The proposed eastern boundary of the special anchorage area is approximately 970 yards from the 12-foot contour on the west side of the Hudson River and approximately 2,600 yards from the 12foot contour on the eastern side of the Hudson River. The resulting impact to vessel transits in this area is so minimal because the special anchorage area leaves more than enough room for the navigation of all vessels. This will allow for greater safety of navigation and traffic in the area, while also providing for a substantial improvement to the safety of anchorages in the area. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM 06FEP1 5384 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of recreational or commercial vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Hudson River near the expanded special anchorage area. However, this special anchorage area would not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the following reasons. The proposed eastern boundary of the special anchorage area is approximately 970 yards from the 12-foot contour on the west side of the Hudson River and approximately 2,600 yards from the 12 foot contour on the eastern side of the Hudson River. It is also about 1,700 yards from the 600-foot wide Hudson River Federal Project Channel. The eastern boundary of this proposed expanded Special Anchorage Area only extends an additional 200 yards from the Nyack shoreline. This is more than enough room for the types of vessels currently operating on the river, which include both small and large commercial vessels. Thus, this special anchorage area will not impede safe and efficient vessel transits on the Hudson River. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at (718) 354–2353. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:52 Feb 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would expand a special anchorage area. E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM 06FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g); and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 110.60, by revising paragraph (o–2) to read as follows: § 110.60 Port of New York and vicinity. * * * * * (o) * * * (o–2) Hudson River, at Nyack. That portion of the Hudson River bound by the following points: 41°06′06.8″ N, 073°54′55.5″ W; thence to 41°06′06.8″ N, 073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N, 073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N, 073°55′02.2″ W; thence along the shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 1983), excluding a fairway in the charted cable area that is marked with buoys. Note: The area is principally for use by yachts and other recreational craft. A mooring buoy is permitted. * * * * * Dated: January 24, 2007. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7–1882 Filed 2–5–07; 8:45 am] rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS BILLING CODE 4910–15–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:52 Feb 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA–2006–23882] RIN 2127–AH34 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door Retention Components National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (NHTSA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: We are amending our safety standard on door locks and door retention components in order to add and update requirements and test procedures and to harmonize with the world’s first global technical regulation for motor vehicles. Today’s final rule adds test requirements and test procedures for sliding doors, adds secondary latched position requirements for doors other than hinged side doors and back doors, provides a new optional test procedure for assessing inertial forces, and extends the application of the standard to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds, including 12–15 passenger vans. Today’s final rule also eliminates an exclusion from the requirements of the standard for doors equipped with wheelchair platform lifts. DATES: Today’s final rule is effective September 1, 2009. Optional early compliance is permitted on and after February 6, 2007. Petitions for reconsideration must be received by March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Washington, DC 20590–0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Maurice Hicks, Structures and Special Systems Division, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–6345; telefax (202) 493–2739; Maurice.hicks@dot.gov. For legal issues: Ms. Rebecca Schade, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–2992; telefax (202) 366–3820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 5385 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background A. Safety Problem B. Harmonization Efforts and the Proposed Upgrade 1. Global Technical Regulation (GTR) 2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 3. Public Comments III. SAFETEA–LU IV. Upgrade to FMVSS No. 206 A. The GTR Process B. Definitions C. Hinged Door Requirements 1. Load Tests 2. Inertial Test 3. Door Hinges D. Side Sliding Door Requirements 1. Side Sliding Door Latch Requirements 2. Side Sliding Door Test Procedure a. Compression Versus Tension b. Test Device and Set-Up c. Application of Force d. Performance Requirement A. Door Locks B. Applicability V. Certification Information VI. Costs, Benefits, and the Effective Date VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary Between 1995 and 2003, over 54,000 motor vehicle occupants were ejected annually from their vehicles. Ejections through glazing (i.e., ejections through a vehicle window) comprised 59 percent of all ejections. Twenty-six percent of all ejections occurred through openings other than side glazing and doors, such as windshields, open convertible tops, and open truck beds. The remaining 15 percent of ejections occurred through a vehicle door. Given the sources and magnitude of the overall safety problem posed by ejections from vehicles, the agency is addressing the problem comprehensively, focusing on ejections through glazing as well as ejections through doors.1 This final rule focuses on those ejections that occur through a vehicle door. Currently, passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Most of this standard’s requirements were established in the early 1970s, in 1 On September 15, 2004, the agency proposed revisions to FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, which would likely induce vehicle manufacturers to use side curtains as a countermeasure (69 FR 55550). The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) added a provision to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which requires the agency to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to establish performance standards to reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants. See 49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1). Containment requirements for side curtains may be one of the countermeasures to prevent ejections through side glazing. E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM 06FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5382-5385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1882]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[CGD01-06-023]
RIN 1625-AA98


Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

[[Page 5383]]


ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to expand the boundary of a Special 
Anchorage Area on the Hudson River at Nyack, NY. This proposed action 
is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide 
safe and secure anchorages for vessels not more than 20 meters in 
length. This proposed action is intended to increase the safety of life 
and property on the Hudson River, improve the safety of anchored 
vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of 
recreational vessel traffic and commerce.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before April 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Waterways 
Management Division (CGD01-06-023), Coast Guard Sector New York, 212 
Coast Guard Drive, room 321, Staten Island, New York 10305. The 
Waterways Management Division of Coast Guard Sector New York maintains 
the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received 
from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as 
being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will 
be available for inspection or copying at room 321, Coast Guard Sector 
New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, 
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at (718) 
354-2353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-
023), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Division 
at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. 
If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at 
a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    As part of a waterfront revitalization effort, the Village of Nyack 
is encouraging waterfront use by the general public. This proposed rule 
is in response to a request made by the Village of Nyack to ensure the 
safe navigation of increased vessel traffic expected to arrive along 
the village waterfront due to this revitalization effort.
    The Coast Guard is designating the area as a special anchorage area 
in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. In accordance with that statute, 
vessels will not be required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights 
or shapes which are otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland 
Navigation Rules, codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035. The proposed 
expanded special anchorage area will be located on the west side of the 
Hudson River about 1,600 yards north of the Tappan Zee Bridge, well 
removed from the channel and located where general navigation will not 
endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels. Providing an anchorage 
well removed from the channel and general navigation would greatly 
increase navigational safety.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would expand the boundary of a current special 
anchorage area located on the Hudson River at the Village of Nyack, NY. 
It would include all waters of the Hudson River bound by the following 
points: 41[deg]06'06.8'' N, 073[deg]54'55.5'' W; thence to 
41[deg]06'06.8'' N, 073[deg]54'18.0'' W; thence to 41[deg]05'00.0'' N, 
073[deg]54'18.0'' W; thence to 41[deg]05'00.0'' N, 073[deg]55'02.2'' W; 
thence along the shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 1983). The 
boundaries of the special anchorage area would increase from its 
current size of approximately 735 yards by approximately 1,030 yards to 
approximately 935 yards by approximately 2,250 yards. The 200 yard 
expansion beyond the current boundary would occur on the eastern side 
and the 2,250 yard expansion would occur on the southern side of the 
special anchorage area.
    All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
    The expanded special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no 
greater than 20 meters in length. Vessels not more than 20 meters in 
length are not required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the 
Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or 
shapes required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 
2030) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally, 
mariners utilizing the expanded anchorage area are encouraged to 
contact local and State authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to 
ensure compliance with additional applicable State and local laws. Such 
laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local 
harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage.
    Vessels would not be authorized to anchor within a buoyed fairway 
within the expanded special anchorage area. The fairway will be marked 
to prevent vessels from anchoring near an active cable.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This finding is based on the fact that the proposal conforms to the 
changing needs of the Village of Nyack and the changing needs of 
recreational vessels along the Hudson River. The proposed eastern 
boundary of the special anchorage area is approximately 970 yards from 
the 12-foot contour on the west side of the Hudson River and 
approximately 2,600 yards from the 12-foot contour on the eastern side 
of the Hudson River. The resulting impact to vessel transits in this 
area is so minimal because the special anchorage area leaves more than 
enough room for the navigation of all vessels. This will allow for 
greater safety of navigation and traffic in the area, while also 
providing for a substantial improvement to the safety of anchorages in 
the area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently

[[Page 5384]]

owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and 
governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of 
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of recreational 
or commercial vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Hudson 
River near the expanded special anchorage area. However, this special 
anchorage area would not have a significant economic impact on these 
entities for the following reasons. The proposed eastern boundary of 
the special anchorage area is approximately 970 yards from the 12-foot 
contour on the west side of the Hudson River and approximately 2,600 
yards from the 12 foot contour on the eastern side of the Hudson River. 
It is also about 1,700 yards from the 600-foot wide Hudson River 
Federal Project Channel. The eastern boundary of this proposed expanded 
Special Anchorage Area only extends an additional 200 yards from the 
Nyack shoreline. This is more than enough room for the types of vessels 
currently operating on the river, which include both small and large 
commercial vessels. Thus, this special anchorage area will not impede 
safe and efficient vessel transits on the Hudson River.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, 
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at (718) 
354-2353. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities 
that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of 
the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this 
case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should 
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits 
the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would expand a 
special anchorage area.

[[Page 5385]]

    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in 
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the 
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental 
review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and 
2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); and Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend Sec.  110.60, by revising paragraph (o-2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  110.60  Port of New York and vicinity.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (o-2) Hudson River, at Nyack. That portion of the Hudson River 
bound by the following points: 41[deg]06'06.8'' N, 073[deg]54'55.5'' W; 
thence to 41[deg]06'06.8'' N, 073[deg]54'18.0'' W; thence to 
41[deg]05'00.0'' N, 073[deg]54'18.0'' W; thence to 41[deg]05'00.0'' N, 
073[deg]55'02.2'' W; thence along the shoreline to the point of origin 
(NAD 1983), excluding a fairway in the charted cable area that is 
marked with buoys.

    Note: The area is principally for use by yachts and other 
recreational craft. A mooring buoy is permitted.

* * * * *

    Dated: January 24, 2007.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E7-1882 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P